3 ms·

You're exactly wrong. The Constitution Of the United States, which I believe in unswervingly-- was written at a time when privacy was the DEFAULT. Any person c

You're exactly wrong. The Constitution Of the United States, which I believe in unswervingly-- was written at a time when privacy was the DEFAULT. Any person could walk into any building or any field and speak, anonymously to another person. It cost quite a bit to spy on someone and that was a natural limit to how much spying could be done. The argument from the other side is always-- the framers didn't imagine a world where everyone is carrying around a device that spies on them and they didn't happen to imagine a dystopian future where people are paying corporations to spy on them with unimaginable devices, so, we should be allowed to do that. Politely, fudge that.

catlifeonmars 5y ago
I think you misunderstand my position as well as who you need to convince. It’s not angry people who vehemently believe that we need more surveillance. It’s apathy. Why should I care? (I do care, and like I mentioned in my original comment, I agree with the parent).
HWR_14 5y ago
> Constitution Of the United States, which I believe in unswervingly What does that mean? Meanwhile, I don't really feel like there was much privacy back when the constitution was written. What makes you think there was?
- salawat 5y ago
  there wasn't even .uch in the way of federal law enforcement. Any type of eavesdroppi g would have to be done via tge post, which to this day has better confidentiality guarantees because USPS is one of the only service providers to which Third Party Doctrine does not apply for auto-negating expectations of privacy. if you were investigated, it would have to be by a local law enforcement official. There was no cross-referencing of biometrics, fingerprints, or driver's licenses across state lines. There were no license plates to track. When they were eventuallu implemented, it would be decades before data stores were implemented that allowed real-time tracking via ALPR. It was, in fact, not a given or even remotely a given that it was considered technically possible to localize or pin down an individual without one or more individuals being engaged in the act of tailing. There is no question that at the timeof the signing of the Constitution, the world had a much higher degree of privacy by default.

catlifeonmars 5y ago

I think you misunderstand my position as well as who you need to convince. It’s not angry people who vehemently believe that we need more surveillance. It’s apathy. Why should I care? (I do care, and like I mentioned in my original comment, I agree with the parent).

HWR_14 5y ago

> Constitution Of the United States, which I believe in unswervingly What does that mean? Meanwhile, I don't really feel like there was much privacy back when the constitution was written. What makes you think there was?

salawat 5y ago
there wasn't even .uch in the way of federal law enforcement. Any type of eavesdroppi g would have to be done via tge post, which to this day has better confidentiality guarantees because USPS is one of the only service providers to which Third Party Doctrine does not apply for auto-negating expectations of privacy. if you were investigated, it would have to be by a local law enforcement official. There was no cross-referencing of biometrics, fingerprints, or driver's licenses across state lines. There were no license plates to track. When they were eventuallu implemented, it would be decades before data stores were implemented that allowed real-time tracking via ALPR. It was, in fact, not a given or even remotely a given that it was considered technically possible to localize or pin down an individual without one or more individuals being engaged in the act of tailing. There is no question that at the timeof the signing of the Constitution, the world had a much higher degree of privacy by default.